U.S. Supreme Court Faces Public Perception Challenges

The U.S. Supreme Court concluded one of its most contentious terms at the end of June amid heightened partisan tensions. Following this, Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan testified before Congress on the need for improved judiciary security. They expressed concerns about how partisan framing impacts public perceptions of their decisions, not solely due to safety concerns.

Chief Justice John Roberts highlighted in his 2024 annual report that courts struggle to counter misinformation about their decisions since judges primarily communicate through their rulings. They do not typically hold press conferences or issue rebuttals. Outside its formal rulings, the Supreme Court communicates with the public through live audio of oral arguments during its October-June term. This practice was first introduced in 2020.

In research conducted for C-SPAN in 2022 and again earlier this year, tracking was done on likely U.S. voters’ views on Supreme Court favorability, awareness, interest, and live audio consumption. Among older generations such as Boomers, awareness remains low, with a slight increase from 37 percent in 2022 to 39 percent currently. On the other hand, awareness among Gen X, Millennials, and Gen Z rose from 46 percent in 2022 to 63 percent today.

Gen X, Millennials, and Gen Z voters primarily access Supreme Court news through social media, where oral argument audio is frequently shared. In contrast, older voters predominantly rely on traditional media like national and cable TV news. Among those aware of live audio, younger voters have a more positive view of the Supreme Court — 58 percent compared to 27 percent of Boomers.

Live audio appears to build trust over time. Findings show that it enhances views of the court, especially among those who access it via digital media. Despite concerns about digital and social platforms spreading falsehoods, they offer more chances for the public to directly engage with the court.

As people hear justices directly, they increasingly view the court’s work positively, even if they disagree with individual rulings. The data suggests that televised oral arguments could further enhance transparency and trust in the Supreme Court. Cameras in the courtroom, like live audio, could show viewers the justices’ serious approach to their work. Live video could broaden the public’s perspective on Supreme Court rulings, helping counter misleading partisan attacks and misinformation.

This perspective is shared by Robert Green, principal, and Ian Green, vice president at Pierrepont Consulting and Analytics.